Many people, who attend events such as sports games, concerts, weddings, etc., desire to both watch the event and photograph or video record the event for later enjoyment. Currently it is very difficult to do both. Either one will pay close attention to the camera and thus miss the enjoyment of the live event, or one will concentrate on the live event, with the result that the photographic record of the event is of poor quality. Though it is possible to simply set a still camera in a single location with, for example, a remote shutter release, or to place a video camera to record the entire sports playing area, the results of doing so are normally unsatisfactory. Also, for sports and other events, one particular player or performer may be of special interest to a spectator (e.g., parents watching their child playing basketball, performing on stage, etc.). But tracking a single individual back and forth down a basketball court or across a stage requires constant attention and detracts from the enjoyment of the event.
Servo control methods for operating still or video cameras are known in the art. For example, the “AXIS 295 Video Surveillance Joystick” commercially available from Axis Communications Inc. (100 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, Mass. 01824) has a three-axis Hall-effect joystick, 12 programmable push-buttons and USB interface, and integrates with video surveillance software platforms recognizing joystick inputs via Microsoft's DirectX application programming interfaces from Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash. (USA). An example of video surveillance software is “Axis Camera Station” software, commercially available from Axis Communications. Information about the AXIS 295 Video Joystick and AXIS Communications Software can be found at AXIS 295 Video Surveillance Joystick, Installation Guide© Axis communications AB2006, Rev. 1.0, Part No. 26393; AXIS Camera Station USERMANUAL©, 2004-211, Ver. M2.7, Part No. 44738; and (P-Surveillance Design guide©, 2008; all from AXIS Communications, Inc., Chelmsford, Mass. (USA), and each incorporated by reference herein. Remote control pan and tilt units allow an operator to control many parameters of camera operation; however these units require the full attention of the operator to some kind of viewing screen that is either attached to or remote from the unit. The result is that the servo control systems are little different from a simply watching the event on screen or through a viewfinder while manually controlling a camera and do not allow for the user to enjoy watching the event ‘live’ instead of on a view screen. See also U.S. Pat. No. 6,977,678, incorporated by reference herein.
Therefore, there is need for a method, system, and apparatus for recording events and tracking subjects or persons which allows the camera operator to enjoy the event in real time. Specifically, there is a need for an apparatus, system, and method of kinesthetic control or “correlative touch and feel control” to control directional orientation of a still or video camera by methods that do not require constant or excessive watching of a viewfinder or video screen, and that allow intuitive manual control of camera aiming.
This correlative touch and feel control should take advantage of the body's ability to accurately do multiple tasks simultaneously, especially in the case where one task is a repetitive motor skill. In other words, using this ability, an observer can both watch an event and capture images without having to choose one or the other, and without significantly distracting either from the enjoyment of watching the event or from achieving high quality image capture.
Kinesthetic control, described herein as correlative touch and feel control is known as a means of control of mechanical equipment. For example, while the present document relies in general on common knowledge of the human ability to control mechanical systems, papers by William T. Powers “A Brief Introduction to Percepted Control Theory”© 2003; (see http://www.frontier.net/˜powers_w/whatpct.html) and Charles C. MacAdam (see http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65021/1/MacAdam_2003%20VSD%20Understanding%20and%20Modelling%20the%20Driver.pdf, and Vehicles System dynamics, 2003, vol. 40, Nos. 1-3, pp. 101-134, Swets & Zeitlinger, incorporated by reference herein) provide an introduction to the theoretical basis for human control mechanical systems. Kinesthetic control is defined here as using finger, hand, arm, or other body movement in conjunction with a learnable physical and spatial interface, to control, direct, or influence a physical result. The control motions may correspond directly to a desired outcome (such as an individual piano key playing one note, or a computer key typing a single letter); may provide a signal that changes an object's position (such as the hydraulic control lever on a backhoe or excavator); or it may control the speed or other variable parameter of an object (such as the accelerator pedal on a car changing the car's speed). In these cases, after a period of learning, the body adapts to touch and feel control which provides either an absolute or relative reference to the desired output by either providing a one-to-one input/response sequence (e.g. the piano key), by making a change to the current state of the parameter being controlled (e.g. the hydraulic lever or accelerator pedal), or by making some other specific output response to a given physical input.
Using correlative touch and feel to control equipment is known in many fields other than photography. For example, an automobile relies on the use of a “correlative touch and feel” interface which requires an initial learning period, but which can then be operated very naturally with little singular focus given to the psycho-motor skills which are necessary. At first, learning to drive an automobile requires intense concentration. The learner must grasp the relationships of the motion of controls (the steering wheel, accelerator, clutch and brake pedals, gearshift, etc.) to the actual movement of the vehicle. And though the learner may control the vehicle very poorly at first, he or she soon reaches a level of mastery that allows the vehicle to be controlled almost entirely by correlative touch and feel. This control allows the driver to view and enjoy the scenery while maintaining smooth operation of the car. Control is maintained over different driving conditions such as city traffic, expressway speeds, curving and uneven country roads, etc., while the driver makes only occasional reference to the dash panel to glance at the speedometer and other instruments or to make sure of a control location.
Another example of this type of learned control of equipment is the operation of computer, ten key, and calculator keyboards. For example, while someone who is new to keyboard use may only be able to type a few words per minute, an experienced typist can input 50 to 100 words per minute with almost no conscious thought applied to the location of the keys, beyond initially feeling the reference marks typically found on the ‘F’ and ‘J’ keys. And what is mentally tiring at first—finding the keys in the order of words being scanned by eye—becomes second nature so that the fingers seem to respond almost independently of the eyes scanning a text that is being copied such that words and sentences instead of individual letters seem almost to flow from the keyboard.
Other examples of this type of learned control of equipment include flying airplanes; operating construction equipment such as a loader, backhoe, or excavator; controlling software operations (such as e.g. photo editing software) using computer input devices such as a mouse, pointer, touchpad, etc.; and playing musical instruments such as piano, accordion, xylophone, etc.
Control systems generally use a defined space to provide a general set of limits through which the manual control takes place, based on various types of sensory inputs. For example, a car has an operator station (seat) which positions the driver in a known physical relationship to foot controls (clutch, brake, accelerator), and to hand controls (steering wheel, gearshift, turn signals, wipers, radio, etc.). Within these bounds, through practice, the body quickly learns to provide inputs to the vehicle. The driver then interprets the movements of the car by observing several types of input. The view out the windshield is the most common input. Other inputs to the operator include the view in the rear-view mirrors, the position of a speedometer needle, presence or absence of indicator lights, the relative position of a turn-signal lever, road noise and vibration, and even things such as the memory of the physical location of an output—such as the memory of the manual gearshift position after an upshift from third to fourth gear.
These inputs are organized by the brain to provide a “sense” of the car's operation which includes but is not limited to the visual perception of the location of the vehicle. Often inputs provide redundant feedback which serves to either confirm a single input or to ““flag” that input for verification. For example, the sense of acceleration provided by the driver being forced into the seat (or more accurately in real physical terms, the seat applying a force to the driver) and the sound of the engine (volume and timbre), along with knowledge of gear selected, road conditions, and previous speed allows a driver to very closely estimate vehicle speed, such that a visual scan of the speedometer may only be made when a speed limit sign or police cruiser is sighted. This results in smooth and skillful operation of the vehicle by an experienced driver devoting very little conscious attention to driving. In contrast, someone just learning to drive will try to visually scan the speedometer frequently but is much more likely to control vehicle speed quite unevenly. As a result of the body's ability to process and interpret many inputs, someone driving a car is typically aware only of making occasional visual reference to the vehicle speedometer to reassure and confirm correct operation, when in fact a great number of inputs are simultaneously being processed and evaluated.
Still further, the noteworthy adaptability of drivers to different vehicles shows how easily persons can ““calibrate” their own sensory inputs to a varying control interfaces. To continue the vehicle analogy, the same person can easily move from a very small compact car with an automatic transmission and unresponsive acceleration, steering, and brakes, for example, to a highly responsive sports car having quick throttle, braking, and steering response, to an over-the-road semi-tractor having a thirteen speed manual transmission, and an operator seat (and therefore an operator visual reference point) higher than the roof of most cars.
While such operator control has been applied to some things, such as discussed above, it has not been applied to others. In the case of automobiles, backhoes, and the like, the operator kinesthetic control translates minute human motor control of a relatively few separate and dedicated controls (e.g., steering wheel, accelerator, brakes) into much more powerful mechanical forces and movements. In the case of musical instruments or computer keyboards, fine human motor control manipulates a larger number (e.g., standard piano has 88 keys, most computer keyboards have well over 50 keys) of separate one-function controls (e.g., one key for one note, one key for one letter) but to produce not mechanical power or movement, but some quite different output (e.g., sound energy or digital data that can be translated to letters or words). In these cases, the expense and complexity of the hardware for kinesthetic control and the value of its output is justified. However, those factors militate against kinesthetic control in other situations.
A need has been identified for improvements in the art of photographing or imaging a live event. Given a short time for learning, an operator of the system as described herein should be able to control a video or still camera, or even multiple cameras, with very little conscious thought given to the process and with highly satisfactory results, based on the body's ability to virtually automatically coordinate and assimilate multiple sensory inputs into a mental sense of the state of physical objects while performing other mental functions, particularly when the first function involves repetitive psychomotor skills.